Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
My husband had undergone chemotherapy last year and is infertile as a result. Prior to chemo, he banked sperm and we started with 7 vials. We have a daughter who is 2.5 who we conceived naturally before my husband had cancer. I was pregnant twice before her but had MCs early on. All three times I got pregnant it was within two months of trying. My cycles are 26 days, I’m 35 with an AMH of 1.5. Our only issue is my husband’s infertility post chemo.
We have done three unsuccessful IUIs, two natural cycle and the last of which was medicated with Clomid and a trigger 24 hrs before. We now have 4 vials left and are being pushed to do IVF but are hesitant both from a cost and invasiveness perspective.
We also are very unhappy with how the IUI system is conducted at our current location. It’s very impersonal and not very monitored on the day before and day of and I feel like they just want us to do IVF bc of the cost. We are reaching out for a second opinion. In light of the fact that we only have four vials left of his sperm, do you think it makes sense for us to try IUI – for a round or two – leaving two vials for IVF if that doesn’t work? Or should we just go to IVF at this point? The parameters of his samples have varied greatly – the first had 80 million post thaw but only 8% motility. The second had 60% motility but only 7 million post thaw. This last round was 12 million with 61% motility. We are frustrated and scared and are hoping you can help. Thank you.
From what you are telling me, I would try one or 2 more IUI’s and then move to IVF. However, before doing any further treatment, I would undergo a thorough evaluation for ovarian reserve (AMH/FSH/LH/E2) and for an anatomical/immunologic cause of implantation dysfunction.
Good luck!
Geoff Sher
Hello Dr. Sher,
I am currently preparing for a FET scheduled in 3 days. I have 4 blastocysts frozen. 2 are day 5 graded 3BA. And 2 are day 6 graded 5BB and 4BB. They are from 2 separate IVF cycles. I am almost 42yrs old. My current dilemma is deciding which 2 to transfer. I am transferring 2 because none are PGS tested (personal reasons for that) my Dr plans to transfer my 2 day 5 blasts. His preference is to put back the two higher graded. While I understand his reason for this, I have reservations. I was thinking about transferring 1 day 5 and 1 day 6. These are my reasons: I have done 7 IVF retrievals. Previous Drs were transferring fresh early blasts. Too early to grade. I switched practices and have done my 2 most recent and most successful with my current dr. If this transfer fails, the plan is to do a final retrieval. That would be number 8. I would be 42 by the time of retrieval and doubt I will get a 3BA again. I also have a thin lining. In stim cycles I barely get over 7 even if my estrogen is in the thousands. At my lining check I wasn’t able to see my dr and saw another in the practice. She first wrote my lining was 7.12 then said that was too conservative and changed it to 7.78. I wish I had not seen the first number, because I cannot help but be concerned that it really is barely over 7. Their practice prefers 7.5 as a minimum. I am concerned I didn’t reach that. For those two reasons I thought to save one of my day 5. For a final transfer in the future. A sort of back up so to speak. Is it possible to transfer a day 5 and day6 in the same FET. Is a lining of 7 that bad to warrant saving a day 5? What is your opinion? I would prefer not to do an 8th retrieval, but would do it if it fails regardless of which 2 I place back this FET in hopes to get another BA grade.
Thank you for your post:
First, as far as the embryos chosen for transfer is concerned, I concur with your RE and would definitely choose the best 2 initially. But there is a far greater issue and that is whether or not you also have an implantation dysfunction. In my opinion, a lining of <8mm is totally inadequate and I would be very reluctant to transfer to such a uterus. There are ways to try and effectively thicken the lining (see the relevant articles on my blog. Moreover, you need to look at all the factors that could contribute to IVF failure before embarking on an FET. Finally, if you try another fresh cycle, you need to review and perhaps revise the protocol used for ovarian stimulation as this is an important factor when it comes to ultimate egg/embryo quality.
Whenever a patient fails to achieve a viable pregnancy following embryo transfer (ET), the first question asked is why! Was it simply due to, bad luck?, How likely is the failure to recur in future attempts and what can be done differently, to avoid it happening next time?.
It is an indisputable fact that any IVF procedure is at least as likely to fail as it is to succeed. Thus when it comes to outcome, luck is an undeniable factor. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon the treating physician to carefully consider and address the causes of IVF failure before proceeding to another attempt:
1.Age: The chance of a woman under 35Y of age having a baby per embryo transfer is about 35-40%. From there it declines progressively to under 5% by the time she reaches her mid-forties. This is largely due to declining chromosomal integrity of the eggs with advancing age…”a wear and tear effect” on eggs that are in the ovaries from birth.
2.Embryo Quality/”competency (capable of propagating a viable pregnancy)”. As stated, the woman’s age plays a big role in determining egg/embryo quality/”competency”. This having been said, aside from age the protocol used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the next most important factor. It is especially important when it comes to older women, and women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) where it becomes essential to be aggressive, and to customize and individualize the ovarian stimulation protocol.
We used to believe that the uterine environment is more beneficial to embryo development than is the incubator/petri dish and that accordingly, the earlier on in development that embryos are transferred to the uterus, the better. To achieve this goal, we used to select embryos for transfer based upon their day two or microscopic appearance (“grade”). But we have since learned that the further an embryo has advanced in its development, the more likely it is to be “competent” and that embryos failing to reach the expanded blastocyst stage within 5-6 days of being fertilized are almost invariably “incompetent” and are unworthy of being transferred. Moreover, the introduction into clinical practice about a decade ago, (by Levent Keskintepe PhD and myself) of Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS), which assesses for the presence of all the embryos chromosomes (complete chromosomal karyotyping), provides another tool by which to select the most “competent” embryos for transfer. This methodology has selective benefit when it comes to older women, women with DOR, cases of unexplained repeated IVF failure and women who experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
3.The number of the embryos transferred: Most patients believe that the more embryos transferred the greater the chance of success. To some extent this might be true, but if the problem lies with the use of a suboptimal COS protocol, transferring more embryos at a time won’t improve the chance of success. Nor will the transfer of a greater number of embryos solve an underlying embryo implantation dysfunction (anatomical molecular or immunologic).Moreover, the transfer of multiple embryos, should they implant, can and all too often does result in triplets or greater (high order multiples) which increases the incidence of maternal pregnancy-induced complications and of premature delivery with its serious risks to the newborn. It is for this reason that I rarely recommend the transfer of more than 2 embryos at a time and am moving in the direction of advising single embryo transfers …especially when it comes to transferring embryos derived through the fertilization of eggs from young women.
4.Implantation Dysfunction (ID): Implantation dysfunction is a very common (often overlooked) cause of “unexplained” IVF failure. This is especially the case in young ovulating women who have normal ovarian reserve and have fertile partners. Failure to identify, typify, and address such issues is, in my opinion, an unfortunate and relatively common cause of repeated IVF failure in such women. Common sense dictates that if ultrasound guided embryo transfer is performed competently and yet repeated IVF attempts fail to propagate a viable pregnancy, implantation dysfunction must be seriously considered. Yet ID is probably the most overlooked factor. The most common causes of implantation dysfunction are:
a.A“ thin uterine lining”
b.A uterus with surface lesions in the cavity (polyps, fibroids, scar tissue)
c.Immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID)
d.Endocrine/molecular endometrial receptivity issues
e.Ureaplasma Urealyticum (UU) Infection of cervical mucous and the endometrial lining of the uterus, can sometimes present as unexplained early pregnancy loss or unexplained failure following intrauterine insemination or IVF. The infection can also occur in the man, (prostatitis) and thus can go back and forth between partners, with sexual intercourse. This is the reason why both partners must be tested and if positive, should be treated contemporaneously.
Certain causes of infertility are repetitive and thus cannot readily be reversed. Examples include advanced age of the woman; severe male infertility; immunologic infertility associated with alloimmune implantation dysfunction (especially if it is a “complete DQ alpha genetic match between partners plus uterine natural killer cell activation (NKa).
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements for Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•Ovarian Stimulation in Women Who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): Introducing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion protocol
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers should be the Standard of Care in IVF
•IVF: How Many Attempts should be considered before Stopping?
•“Unexplained” Infertility: Often a matter of the Diagnosis Being Overlooked!
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management 🙁 Case Report)
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition; how it Works; Administration; Side-effects; Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF?
•The Role of Nutritional Supplements in Preparing for IVF
I urge you to set up a Skype or an in-person consultation with me. To do so, simply call 1-800-780-7437 (if you reside in the U.S.A or Canada) or 702-533-2691 (if you reside elsewhere). Alternatively you can enroll online by going to the home page of the Sher-IVF website, http://www.SherIVF.com where, upon completing an enrollment form), you will immediately be eligible to download my new book, “Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL) and unexplained IVF Failure: The Immunologic Link”, free of charge.
Geoffrey Sher MD
Sir this is my day 12 of 2 frozen grade 3 day 5 embryos transferred…i had done my urine pregnancy test today…it came negative…my blood test is two days to go…can i have a positive result by any chance…feeling so worried
Yes indeed you might because the blood test is far more sensitive than the urine test. You are probably too early to be tested, anyway.
Good luck!
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr. Sher,
On your blog I was reading where you are talking about possibility of transferring abnormal embryos. I am thinking about transferring a monosomy14 embryo. I have tried 8 IVFs and currently 16 frozen embryos and sent all to PGS test but all were abnormal. I am over 40 and I know my chances to get normal embryos are very low, so My doctor mentioned Monosomy 14 to transfer. May I ask your opinion?
Thank you for your time.
I would concur with that decision.
Human embryo development occurs through a process that encompasses reprogramming, sequential cleavage divisions and mitotic chromosome segregation and embryonic genome activation. Chromosomal abnormalities may arise during germ cell and/or preimplantation embryo development and represents a major cause of early pregnancy loss. About a decade ago, I and my associate, Levent Keskintepe PhD were the first to introduce full embryo karyotyping (identification of all 46 chromosomes) through preimplantation genetic sampling (PGS) as a method by which to selectively transfer only euploid embryos (i.e. those that have a full component of chromosomes) to the uterus. We subsequently reported on a 2-3-fold improvement in implantation and birth rates as well as a significant reduction in early pregnancy loss, following IVF. Since then PGS has grown dramatically in popularity such that it is now widely used throughout the world.
Most IVF programs that offer PGS services, require that all participating patients consent to all their aneuploid embryos (i.e. those with an irregular quota of chromosomes) be disposed of. However, there is now growing evidence to suggest that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “autocorrection”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases occurring within our IVF network. So clearly, summarily discarding all aneuploid embryos as a matter of routine we are sometimes destroying some embryos that might otherwise have “autocorrected” and gone on to develop into normal offspring.
Thus by discarding aneuploid embryos the possibility exists that we could be denying some women the opportunity of having a baby. This creates a major ethical and moral dilemma for those of us that provide the option of PGS to our patients. On the one hand, we strive “to avoid knowingly doing harm” (the Hippocratic Oath) and as such would prefer to avoid or minimize the risk of miscarriage and/or chromosomal birth defects and on the other hand we would not wish to deny patients with aneuploid embryos, the opportunity to have a baby.
The basis for such embryo “autocorrection” lies in the fact that some embryos found through PGS-karyotyping to harbor one or more aneuploid cells (blastomeres) will often also harbor chromosomally normal (euploid) cells (blastomeres). The coexistence of both aneuploid and euploid cells coexisting in the same embryo is referred to as “mosaicism.”
It is against this background, that an ever-increasing number of IVF practitioners, rather than summarily discard PGS-identified aneuploid embryos are now choosing to cryobanking (freeze-store) certain of them, to leave open the possibility of ultimately transferring them to the uterus. In order to best understand the complexity of the factors involved in such decision making, it is essential to understand the causes of embryo aneuploidy of which there are two varieties:
1.Meiotic aneuploidy” results from aberrations in chromosomal numerical configuration that originate in either the egg (most commonly) and/or in sperm, during preconceptual maturational division (meiosis). Since meiosis occurs in the pre-fertilized egg or in and sperm, it follows that when aneuploidy occurs due to defective meiosis, all subsequent cells in the developing embryo/blastocyst/conceptus inevitably will be aneuploid, precluding subsequent “autocorrection”. Meiotic aneuploidy will thus invariably be perpetuated in all the cells of the embryo as they replicate. It is a permanent phenomenon and is irreversible. All embryos so affected are thus fatally damaged. Most will fail to implant and those that do implant will either be lost in early pregnancy or develop into chromosomally defective offspring (e.g. Down syndrome, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome).
2.“Mitotic aneuploidy” occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically normal (euploid) early embryo mutate and become aneuploid. This is referred to as “mosaicism”. Thereupon, with continued subsequent cell replication (mitosis) the chromosomal make-up (karyotype) of the embryo might either comprise of predominantly aneuploid cells or euploid cells. The subsequent viability or competency of the conceptus will thereupon depend on whether euploid or aneuploid cells predominate. If in such mosaic embryos aneuploid cells predominate, the embryo will be “incompetent”). If (as is frequently the case) euploid cells prevail, the mosaic embryo will likely be “competent” and capable of propagating a normal conceptus.
Since some mitotically aneuploid (“mosaic”) embryos can, and indeed do “autocorrect’ while meiotically aneuploid embryos cannot, it follows that an ability to reliably differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would potentially be of considerable clinical value. The recent introduction of a variety of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) known as next generation gene sequencing (NGS) has vastly improved the ability to reliably and accurately karyotype embryos and thus to diagnose embryo “mosaicism”.
The ability of mosaic embryos to autocorrect is influenced by the stage at which the condition is diagnosed as well as the percentage of mosaic cells. Many embryos diagnosed as being mosaic while in the earlier cleaved state of development, subsequently undergo autocorrection to the euploid state (normal numerical chromosomal configuration) during the process of undergoing subsequent mitotic cell to the blastocyst stage. Similarly, mosaic blastocysts can also undergo autocorrection after being transferred to the uterus. The lower the percentage of mosaic cells in the blastocyst the greater the propensity to autocorrect and propagate chromosomally normal (euploid) offspring. By comparison, a blastocyst with 10% mosaicism could yield a 30% healthy baby rate with 10-15% miscarriage rate, while with >50% mosaicism the baby rate is roughly halved and the miscarriage rate double.
Aneuploidy involves the addition (trisomy) or subtraction (monosomy) of one or part of one chromosome in any given pair. As previously stated, some aneuploidies are meiotic in origin while others are mitotic “mosaics”. Certain aneuploidies involve only a single, chromosome pair (simple aneuploidy) while others involve several pairs (i.e. complex aneuploidy). Aside from monosomy involving the absence of the y-sex chromosome (i.e. XO) which can result in a live birth (Turner syndrome) of a compromised baby, virtually all monosomies involving autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) are likely to be lethal and will rarely result in viable offspring. Some autosomal meiotic aneuploidies, especially trisomies 13, 18, 21, can propagate viable and severely chromosomally defective babies. Other meiotic autosomal trisomies will almost invariably, either not attach to the uterine lining or upon attachment, will soon be rejected. All forms of meiotic aneuploidy are irreversible while as stated, mitotic aneuploidy (“mosaicism) can autocorrect, yielding healthy offspring. Most complex aneuploidies are meiotic in origin and will thus almost invariably fail to propagate viable pregnancies.
Since certain “mosaic” meiotic aneuploid trisomy embryos (e.g. trisomies 13, 18, & 21) can potentially result in aneuploid concepti. For this reason, it is my opinion that unless the woman/couple receiving such embryos is willing to commit to terminating a resulting pregnancy found through amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to be so affected, she/they are probably best advised not to transfer have them transferred to the uterus. Embryos harboring other autosomal mosaic trisomic embryos, should they not autocorrect in-utero will hardly ever produce a baby and as such there is hardly any risk at all…in transferring such embryos. However, it is my opinion that in the event of an ongoing pregnancy, amniocentesis or CVS should be performed to make certain that the baby is euploid. Conversely, when it comes to mosaic autosomal monosomy, given that virtually no autosomal monosomy embryos are likely to propagate viable pregnancies, the transfer of such mosaic embryos is virtually risk free. Needless to say, in any such cases , it is absolutely essential to make full disclosure to the patient (s) , and to insure the completion of a detailed informed consent agreement which would include a commitment by the patient (s) to undergo prenatal genetic testing (amniocentesis/CVS) aimed at excluding a chromosomal defect in the developing baby and/or a willingness to terminate the pregnancy should a serious birth defect be diagnosed.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr. Sher,
I am 32 years old, not on birth control (haven’t been for years) and just had a blood test for FSH/LH on day 3 of my period. My results are LH 10.6 and FSH 13.3. Do I need to be concerned? I want to have children one day more than anything. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond.
That is concerning. However the blood AMH level measured any time of the cycle is a much better and more reliable indicator of ovarian reserve. I would have this tested.
Geoff Sher